BBC Television Centre, London (cont)
Liz Molyneux, Editorial Executive, Factual Commissioning
Matt Morris, Head of News, Radio Five Live
Neil Nightingale, Head of Natural History Unit
Paul Brannan, Deputy Head of News Interactive
Peter Horrocks, Head of Television News
Peter Rippon, Duty Editor, World at One/PM/The World this Weekend
Phil Harding, Director, English Networks & Nations
Steve Mitchell, Head Of Radio News
Sue Inglish, Head Of Political Programmes
Frances Weil, Editor of News Special Events

[…] and that’s why they weren’t playing ball with the FOIA. The full list of all attendees has now been made public thanks to dogged research of open source information. The interesting thing about this is that of […]

favicon thinkscotland.org Original Page
Thinking, talking and acting for Scotland in Europe

Read Later

IN THE MIDST of a storm of scandals about the BBC a new one runs the risk of not receiving the coverage it is surely due. Certainly the BBC is reticent in reporting it though it went viral online on 12th November..

For years the BBC has claimed that its propagandistic position of promoting the catastrophic global warming fraud, censoring the appearance of dissenters and even getting rid of anybody who refused to push the party line (e.g. Johnny Ball, Peter Sissons and the still very popular David Bellamy) was justified. The justification for this was that they claimed to have called, in 2006, a meeting of the country’s 28 “best scientific experts” who had unanimously told them that there was no scientific doubt that we were experiencing catastrophic warming.

Tony Newbery, a retired viewer and sceptic sent the BBC a Freedom of Information Act request to find who these “leading scientists” were. The BBC refused to say.

Since then in appeal after appeal the BBC has spent tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds, employing top barristers to prevent us knowing who the leading scientists they had chosen to ask really were. The BBC asserted that telling anybody would be a breach of its ethics and of journalistic secrecy. In the climate sceptic community this produced …well, scepticism.

Then on Monday somebody found the names. The BBC, who had spent so much ot our money to prevent us knowing the strength of their case, had shared it with the International Broadcasting Trust, an “environmentalist” group who, it turns out, had helped them organise the meeting. They had put the ‘secret list” online. Perhaps somebody had not told them about the BBC version of “journalistic integrity”.

So who are Britain’s 28 “leading scientists”. There is a recently published list of Britain’s 100 leading scientists and none of them are on it. There is an MP, a Church of England devine, representatives of Greenpeace (2), Stop Climate Chaos, the US government, BP, a “renewables” company director, and other “environmental” activists. Of the very few of these “leading scientists” who have any claim to being scientists one is a gentleman who has gone on record as saying what he does (which he calls “post normal science”) is to tell those in power whatever they want to hear.

Such fraudulent propagandising would have embarrassed the old Soviet Union.

A recent World Bank report examined the role of government ownership of broadcasting. It found that the degree of ownership, particularly broadcasting ownership, closely correlated with the degree of authoritarianism, corruption, government incompetence, national poverty and even poor national healthcare. In its way this is unsurprising – the argument for a free press has always been that it means that failure gets noticed and something is done. But it is worth having it statistically pinned down.

Britain has one of the highest levels of state ownership of broadcasting in the developed world and indeed in the English speaking world. The BBC’s justification is that it is different. Its charter requires it to be “balanced”. That is indeed what the law says. It is not what the BBC does on a whole range of subjects; a few of them are now becoming public.

The BBC gives the Greens 40 times more coverage per vote, all of it deeply supportive, than UKIP, almost all critical while the “hacking scandal” became first item on BBC news, for months on end, just when Murdoch was planning to expand Sky TV and give them real competition. On almost every occasion the BBC will primarily, or only, interview people from government organisations or “charities” actually funded by government, who, without fail, demand more government regulation, civil servants and taxes.

I have written before on ThinkScotland of how the “environmental” agenda costs us, now we can see how the BBC has lied repeatedly over a period of years to maintain a political propogandist position not justified by the evidence. Propaganda which has certainly cost the British people many hundreds of billions of pounds and by more than doubling electricity prices, brought us into recession and nearly one million Scots households into fuel poverty.

We literally cannot have a free society without free media. The BBC is so arrogant and totalitarian it cannot now be reformed. If we wish freedom it must be abolished. Indeed I suggest that since the licence fee derives legally from their charter and they have vitiated the charter it has already abolished itself by these frauds.

I may be biased but I don’t think “dead tree” journalism comes out of this with much credibility either.

This story is a scoop obtained by co-operative investigative journalism entirely on the internet. It was a blogger, Tony Newbery, who made an FoI request simply to know who had given the “best scientific advice.” It was him, who kept up the pressure as the BBC refused to answer and brought in platoons of barristers, at great cost to our licence fees, to prevent us knowing what the BBC insisted “journalistic ethics” prevented it making public. It was another blogger who then found the list on the site of an environmental lobbyist the BBC had given it to.

This is a short bio of the producers of the BBC’s “best scientific advice”:

* Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London – undistinguished career until, as an alarmist, appointed Government Chief Science Advisor, then President of the government funded Royal Society and in due course a Lord – stated that religion may help society deal with climate change

* Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA – Mike Hulme, one of 4 nominal “scientists” on the panel of 28 “leading scientists” notoriously once wrote a Guardian article denouncing Professor Fred Singer for doing science the old fashioned way, with evidence, when his sort of “post normal science” which he said involved only finding what his paymasters wanted and saying it, is so much more lucrative.

* Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace – has more than twenty years experience of developing and implementing advocacy and campaign programmes around the world on a wide range of issues.

* Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen – Danish climate scientist “The evolution of the big ice sheets is a very ‘hot’ subject and I beleive our ice and climate research is a very important contribution”

* Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge – researcher in the History and Philosophy of Science, rather than actually doing it.

* Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant – not stated is that he consults for the notorious Climate Research Unit of climategate fame

* Trevor Evans, US Embassy – looking him up on Google appears to have been entirely unreported even on the internet till this news broke

* Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change – MP not scientist

* Matthew Farrow, CBI – “CBI head of energy Matthew Farrow to join Environmental Services Agency” so making a career out of the climate scare

* Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer – does not appear to have been on the internet in any other circumstances, possibly his TV production has not made him famous

* Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment – Cheryl trained as a journalist …working for BBC ..Christian Aid…Cheryl is a trustee of the International Broadcasting Trust – no mention of studying to become a “leading scientist”.

* Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs – marine ecologist …As a result he currently leads a large (£2m) consortium project examining the impacts of ocean acidification – he might call himself a scientist in the same way Hulme does

* Joe Smith, The Open University – teaches environmental communication at the faculty of Social Sciences – PR flack not scientist

* Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID – Department of International Development – government flack not scientist at all

* Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia – Association for Sustainable Investment in Asia – In 1988 she co-founded the UK’s first sustainable investment unit trust ..served on environmental advisory panels for the UK Government and HRH The Prince of Wales.

So it’s not just that we have have only three scientists (May, Dahl-Jensen, Widdicombe – if you don’t count Hulme as a scientist, which I don’t), nor that it is simply loaded down with “environmental activists” and/or those making a very good living out of the scare, but also somewhat unexpected is the number of people whose prime interest is overseas development. Perhaps, desperate to get attendees, the BBC just asked the DFID if it could corral a few people to make up the numbers?

Also interesting is that despite there being only three scientists there are ten non-English names (not including Evans from the US embassy). That does seem to be statistically unusual even for a London-centric organisation.

It is nothing more than astonishing that, up until the BBC got all this leading scientific advice, in always claiming to be impartial or undecided, the BBC chose such a statistically improbable, unrepresentative and especially unqualified group to ask.

[…] last week, those names were finally revealed – thanks to another blogger, Maurizio Morabito (see omnilogos.com) and the Wayback Machine, which stores information deleted from the internet – the result was […]

This notion that the BBC must provide a ‘balanced’ opinion on the subject of climate change is strange in that the scientific perspective on climate change is not balanced. Now I know Maurizio you don’t like references to conspiracy ideation but unfortunately, that is all the…..contrarians have. How else do you explain the paucity of peer-reviewed science supporting the opposing position? The answer has to be either everyone is wrong or there is a conspiracy. If you want balance, it’s fair to say that both of those possibilites are equally implausible. The majority of scientists agree the world is not flat. Where are the protests about lack of balance on that subject? The majority of scientists agree that bacteria and viruses cause disease. Where are the protests that demonic possession isn’t being fairly represented?

uknowIspeaksense – as I have written in several sites but not here perhaps, I do not mind if the BBC is partial on any topic and for any reason as long as it says so clearly, openly and without untruths, and elucidates what those reasons are.

In this case they have done nothing of the sort, as if they were pretending still impartiality when they didn’t have, only to pretend then they had had the best advice at a particular meeting when they didn’t have, etc etc.

The BBC has lived out of trust, it seriously risks dying without trust.

So you wouldn’t have a problem if the BBC said, “We are taking advice from Hansen, Santer, Mann, UEA etc and we are only going to present one side of the story because that accurately reflects the evidence in the peer reveiwed literature”?

Yes, I would have no problem if the BBC or anybody else but especially licence-fee-based BBC were to be sincere about what they are doing.

Then we could discuss about the meaning of “accurately reflects”. But we were never given the opportunity, always bounced off by claims of impartiality or mysterious lists of top-class experts whose actual views were for nobody to investigate.

And just forget the “conspiracy”. There is seldom a need for one, and it might always be composed of a handful of people, making it possible but still non-needed if only because they might already be thinking alike, so they wouldn’t even think themselves as conjurers.

I see. So a handful of people are conspiring (either deliberately or not) to fool the world and tens of thousands of competitive, highly intelligent, left brain people are blindly going along for the ride? Is that really what you are suggesting? That, Maurizio is even less plausible than the alternatives I have already mentioned.

Strawman? Seriously? Maurizio, we are both intelligent people….let’s see. Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. How’s this? Are you suggesting that a handful of like-minded people are inadvertantly conjuring the AGW hypothesis? I am genuinely interested to hear your clarification. Feel free to speak plainly so that I don’t inadvertantly conjur a strawman.

I’m afraid i do believe there is a conspiracy here Maurizio, why else would a world renowned organisation feel the need to lie about the makeup of this panel?

The primary aim of the AGW Scare is to convince the population that we have a global problem which will ultimately need a world government to solve. The EU is seen as the vanguard for this one world govt.

A secondary aim is to promote carbon taxes, to distribute freely to companies & politicians to get them on board. Follow the money. “Green energy”, particularly “Big Wind” requires vast govt subsidies to provide unreliable & over expensive electricity, from “ungreen” imported machinery, which requires back up generators running alongside at a most “ungreen” tickover capacity for when the wind drops. “Big Wind” is a huge scandal run for the benefit of the few at the expense of most. It makes sense neither financially nor ecologically, so there is a conspiracy concealing the real reasons for it’s existence.

The one world govt strategy is laid out in UN Agenda 21, which was introduced by UN bureaucrats at the 1992 RIO Earth Summit. Signing it, George Bush Snr proclaimed it a “New World Order”.

Part of UN Agenda 21 plans the equalisation of wealth between 1st & 3rd worlds, which helps explain the ludicrous situation of bankrupt Britain borrowing money to send to India, which does not want it.

The most shocking part of UN Agenda 21 is the aim to depopulate the Earth by about 80% of it’s people. How?

After 20 years, Alabama became the first US state to ban UN Agenda 21. Other states, counties & cities are following suit. This is possible because neither George Bush Snr nor Bill Clinton, who signed it in 1993, bothered to bring it before Congress. The Federal agencies implementing UN Agenda 21, such as the bullying EPA, are acting unconstitutionally,

“it’s fair to say that both of those possibilites are equally implausible”….. Scientists used to agree that the next ice-age was coming (1970). Maybe what we have is something like group-think, perhaps even religion with millions of folowers. Can all (or even any) religions be right? Its the desire for the common good… “save the world from frying”. “save the world from inequality, greed and anything else that is bad”. How can you argue against that? I’m afraid scientists are not immune to religion – perhaps even less so.

Alas , the real world is much less interesting. and the odd thing is that when global warming is history we will not learn before plunging into the next group-think. Try saying “who remembers the fuss over global warming?” in 10 years time and feel the resentment.

At least we got ozone depletion right…. a very different chain of events. why ?

How many scientists published how many papers in the 1970’s predicting an ice age? How many published and predicted warming? I know the answer but that may be a bit of homework for you perhaps….that is if you are genuinely interested in facts. Also to suggest that group think or something akin to religion is at play is to suggest that all those scientists have decided to forego everything they have learnt about science as a process and ignore the scientific method. That is equally as implausible as a conspiracy or everyone being wrong. It also screams loud and clear that you yourself have little or no scientific training yourself.

I never said that I was a scientist, and I am not one. I am just someone who listens and tries to make sense of things .. including the BBC. But I pay for your work.

What your remark shouts at me louder than ever is the following:…
“I am a scientist (the ‘true’ scientist) and you (the non-scientist) do not have the right to comment or make decisions. I am the priest”. How many times have we heard something similar from religions? Your arrogance is breathtaking.

Thank you. You have made things clear in a way in which Maurizio – being too polite – did not.

I do need to point out to you that it is the public (overwhelmingly non-scientists) who have to pay. They do not read scientific papers, but they do rely on what they think are balanced media comments. The BBC in particular. The 70’s ice-age may not have had many (any?) scientific papers but it was something the media threw at us.

Please tell me please Mr High-Priest. Do you think I should trust the views of the scientific advisors to the BBC?

“Do you think I should trust the views of the scientific advisors to the BBC?”

You should read scientific papers and weigh up the evidence. I personally pay very little attention to the media as that sort of information is second hand at best.

As for your desire to paint science as religion, and as a scientist, I am not asking you to believe anything I say. I would urge you though to undertake some scientific training so that when you make comments about the conventions of science you will at least be making informed comments.

Reading it I get the impression that the scientific blogs are genuinely objective and unemotional. I only understand about 10% of what is said, but the message so far is very clear.. that climate science is a very complex area and there is much uncertainty. It doesn’t convince me that spending billions on green technology is a very good investment. Not to mention suppression of growth for poorer countries.

Why have you chosen such a cryptic username – uknowispeaksense – Mr High Priest ? Surely a scientist seeks clarity.

I choose anonymity as in the past I have had hard core deniers harrass my employers and also my family. While most people tend to be polite I won’t take the risk of having people contact my wife and insulting her as has happened in the past. That said, I’m not that hard to find.

Connolley splitting hairs? How about Connolley being misrepresented? You cited him, no doubt on someone else’s assessment. I give it to you straight from the horses mouth that he was misrepresented. You should accept it and find another source that ACTUALLY backs up your claims……….oh.

Well, it’s been fun Maurizio. Feel free to pop over to my blog and tell me what you actually meant. I can understand you don’t want your readership to see you wriggle.

There was a consensus between 1972 and 1975 that the world was cooling. It’s all written in the Connolley et al paper of a few years ago. Everything else was speculation by media-active scientists and copy-hungry journalists, plus the CIA and various scientific bodies taking the opportunity to kick-start climate observations and organizations on a global scale.

Are you suggesting there is no evidence for AGW? If that’s the case then this conversation is pointless. The evidence is that it is happening and all the models predict dangerous consequences it continues unabated. You are correct that we can’t actually test for CAGW…at least not until it actually happens. It becomes a question of risk assessment and management. I can only assume you have car and home insurance when any model you can come up with will predict a 1 in 100 chance your car will be stolen or your house burnt down. Why then take the risk that AGW, which according to ALL models, will be a very bad thing, will not be serious? If it is some sort of philosphical position you are taking because it is based on models, then you better go and live in a cave and forego most modern technology, as everything around you was based on some sort of model at some point. If its a case that you don’t accept expert opinion from experts in a field in which they are experts and you aren’t, then you better go and see your dentist if you need to have a brain tumour removed. Whichever position you take, you will need to also take a philosophically hypocritical position in some aspect. If you can live with that, well, good for you.

[…] to the Information Commissioner’s appeals tribunal refusal to order the release of the list of those present at the BBC Climate change workshop which decided to replace impartiality by a “policy“, by publishing it anyway also […]

Is it possible to get a summary or transcript of what was said at the seminar ? I am a bit worried about pre-judging people by their background. This is partly what has led to the lack of impartiality in the first place, and can be taken as a kind of conspiracy.

[…] Guido Fawkes, the entertainingly scurrilous Tory gossip blog, published a piece [edit: the original scoop was by Maurizio Morabito on the Omnologos blog] about a seminar that the BBC held in 2006 to decide the Corporation's editorial policy on climate […]

Fantastic work, Maurizio.What stands out in the list of participants is the number of organizations which have a vested financial interest in promoting global warming. It cannot be right that the BBC, funded by the taxpayer, colludes with these organizations to their advantage. It seems that corruption is endemic in the BBC.

Well yes- just look at all those conspirators! a mix of business, science, ngos and television but no right wing journalists. I can’t quite see the problem or the conspiracy.

perhaps you could enlighten me on why these people are not suitable to discuss the merits of the science. The BBC does not give equal coverage for ‘intelligent design’ and in fact mocks it- why is the ‘skeptic’ cause not equal in treatment? Bring some real data and research and I for one will listen.

The funny thing is julesbollocks actually identifies a ‘conspiracy’ without realizing it. He writes …but no right wing journalists. I can’t quite see the problem or the conspiracy.
The fact that our national broadcaster is devoid of ‘right wing journalists’ when it is supposed to be fair and balanced is part of the problem and ‘conspiracy’. The fact that jules swallows everything they tell him and is content to allow them to think for him without seeing the problem shows just how successful they are – with those like him.

Ah yes obviously only weird greenies were present at this event.
Like BP?.Or the Institute of Economic Affairs.?Or the insurance industry? Or the CBI? Or NPower? Or even the US Embassy (under George W Bush)…..
You conspiracy theorists really are very selective with your indignation..

My point is a simple one: this attendance list at a BBC briefing event strikes me as a thoroughly balanced one regarding the topic under discussion. I simply do not understand why anybody apart from conspiracy theorists is bothering themselves so much

Andrew W: What is your definition of “balanced”, when it is more than obvious that the weight of ‘balance’ the attendees is very heavily, even 100%, in the pro-CAGW camp? If the seminar were ‘balanced’, why the secrecy? There is no conspiracy theory, just conspiracy to pervert the BBC’s legal Charter (of impartiality). From the list of attendees, show just one person who is a trained and qualified attribution scientist, i.e. whose core subject is a physical science, physics, chemistry, etc. None are. The very few scientists on the list have plant or social science backgrounds, and are essentially pro-mitigation (equivalent to pro-CAGW). All on the list are ‘believers’ in and advocates and CAGW, even Tearfund’s representative has it explicitly, “Advocacy Director”. And what ‘expertise’ in climate science does the ‘Head of Comedy’ have?

Is this culture of open frank and honourable folk? This might have been shocking, but after Dr Kelly, anything can be manipulated or should I say covered up to make most people think the worst without knowlege. This time, THIS TIME. they have been well and truly named. These people are deemed to be experts. What a joke. Thank you for your work

[…] steps another blogger, who manages through diligent (and legal) Internet searches to obtain the list of attendees. On obtaining the list (follow the earlier link) it becomes apparent that the seminar that changed […]

Very well done Maurizio – absolutely brilliant find.
Not only the climate change seminar is revealed by your find. The link also shows the various members of the IBT that undoubtedly have influenced BBC reporting on their respective agendas over the years.
IBT even boasts on their website how they have managed to influence output of the media like the BBC.
There are so many topics where one can see the BBC haven’t even attempted any kind of balance or truth on those subjects. Simply reported it in the way those members propagate their agenda.

I think this is bigger than the Newsnight scandal in how it shows the real lack of ethics within the BBC.

Thank you, Maurizio. You are a first-rate philanthropist. Splendid digging.

But now that you’ve opened the trench, I hope others will enlarge it so that we can chuck the whole of the BBC into it along with its fellow travelers, cover them in lime and fill it back in. Remember: the only good BBC is a dead BBC.

I am firmly in the sceptic camp, and do not agree at all with the BBC’s attempts to keep these names a secret. However, when quoting from the BBC’s report ‘FROM SEESAW TO WAGON WHEEL Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century’ the apparently damning sentence: “The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”, then honesty requires us to also quote the sentence which immediately follows:

“But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926”.

Yes, the BBC’s list of experts was biased, and no, they shouldn’t have tried to keep it secret, but what they were saying in the report was that they believed there was an overwhelming consensus, so they had to report that fact, whilst remaining alert to the possibilty that the consensus may change. We may not agree with them, but let’s not pretend that they didn’t even attempt this.

Exactly, the BBC itself readily admits realists may not be heard! Spending so much of our money on six lawyers to stop us seeing a list of unqualified participants is proof to this! Nice work Maurizio, thank you!

[…] wrote on Sunday how it had refused FoI requests to reveal those names. But Maurizio Morabito has revealed a list which the BBC cannot describe as a bunch of dispassionate scientists: it’s a veritable […]

The BBC won it’s case against the FOI request to see who attended the 2006 CMEP seminar where the BBC formulated this policy

“The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on anthropogenic climate change]”

The rest is history as far as impartiality in reporting on climate change from the BBC was concerned…

The BBC had claimed the seminar was attended by the best scientific experts, but refused to let anyone know who they were… until now, despite the FOI failing, the list is out!

Surprise surprise, the attendees were far from ‘Scientific Experts’…. and not one person there that had an alternate point of view on AGW!

You forget very very few people working at the Beeb will have much knowledge of science, history, sociology, journalism, media studies, yes; chemistry, physics, biology, no. So anyone with a science degree may well appear to be a leading scientist. There are some scientists present, but they appear outnumbered by the rest.

The BBC is not just an impartial disseminator of news and views; it has a strong political agenda and seeks to shape public opinion.The image it portrays of itself being a non-profit organisation attracts mainly left wing idealists to its ranks. This ‘non-profit’ position is after paying its top heavy management enormous tax dodging salaries (after all it needs to attract the right sort of high minded left wing Oxbridge activists). BBC radio 4 news output is editorially hand in glove with the Guardian newspaper – always the first reference ‘in what the papers say’- and the stomping ground of George Monbiot the warmist nut job (surprised he wasn’t at the seminar). He tweeted the name of Lord McAlpine on Twitter as the Newsnight abuser. The BBC is a seething conspiracy of the Marxist left determined to subvert public opinion to promote its own agenda.

No wonder they were so keen to keep this hidden – Greenpeace, Stop Climate Chaos, Tearfund – clearly the best, most authoritative , unbiased sources the BBC could find. And its on THEIR say so that climate sceptics have been ridiculed and ignored. Who selected this bunch of wallies?

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you?
Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes?
Is there a man among you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone!
So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!
[Cromwell’s dismissal of the Rump Parliament in 1653]

[…] this list, however what is believed to be the complete who’s who has now been acquired by legitimate sleuthing by Maurizio Morabito: Specialists: Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London Mike […]

First class work! This is clear evidience to demonstrate that Helen Boaden Head of BBC News, LIED HER ASS OFF, & 6 lawyers & a biased ignorant judge fell for it!!! Then again, has she been the recipient of “BBC dumbing down” because she thinks that anyone who represents an organisation with CO2/Climate/GlobalWarming as a title listing is a scientist or engineer or other technologist? The Warmists can “educate” people, school children, sturdents, etc, but the one thing these arrogant elitists cannot do, is stop them from thinking!!!!! Thank God I say!

Bravo. One can see why the MSM, at least that part that feels only they hold folk to account and only they ask others questions, backed by FoI exclusions if the spotlight turns, doesn’t feel the internet should be allowed to discover the actuall truth vs. the versions they run through their filters.

Well done. The BBC has had so many shots below the water line, it should no longer float. I hope that commenters hammer that message home wherever possible within the on-line main stream media at every opportunity.

Great detective work Maurizio – this is a significant public service and shows how senior BBC management was happy to have activists set editorial policy with minimal scientific input. No wonder they fought to keep the list secret.

So, off that list, I’d say that the following are “Climate Scientists”. (In its broadest sense)
Mike Hulme
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen
Michael Bravo
Saleemul Huq (Possibly?)
Steve Widdicombe
Any I’ve missed?
The rest of the “Specialists”, appear to be the usual bunch of parasites that this scam has attracted. Oh, plus “Big Oil” !

[…] night this site has seen the second large journalistic scoop of my life (so far): Full List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Seminar on 26 January 2006 (here’s the first one: World Exclusive: CIA 1974 Document Reveals Emptiness of AGW Scares, […]

I would be curious to know when that link on the ‘dialogue‘ page ceased to work. All the Wayback examples point to the same 2007 copy of the pdf.

Going by the file names what can be said is that in September 2007 it was okay to list the delegates and link to them in that pink box. By the end of July 2008 that document had been replaced with Real World Brainstorm update 30Jul08.pdf

Tony’s first FOI submission (AFAIK) was July 2007 which was responded to in August 2007 with the BBC claimed “The attendees at the seminar were made up of 30 key BBC staff and 30 invited guests who are specialists in the area of climate change.”

I am amazed at the number of times everyone forgot to look in the Wayback machine until that one person looks. Or knows where to go looking. I remember when Richard North and I and a small handful went looking up and down for the “40% of Amazon would burn away” crap from the IPCC until Gareth dragged it out of Waybackmachine.

These are the great climate experts who decided BBC’s climate coverage? All I can see is activist trash.

Activists are good. Scientists are good. Activists pretending to be scientists, or hiding behind the skirts of scientists are trash. … that is the dregs really. I mean, who the f*** is “Head of Campaigns Greenpeace” to decide what the BBC should do? And why should the BBC pass him or her off as a scientist?

I thought for a moment or two that all TonyN’s efforts had now been wasted, but it isn’t so – his tribunal has demonstrated yet again, and in the very present day, the lengths (and our money) that the BBC will go to in order to conceal a deception.

It seems to get worse and worse for the Beeb at present; this list and their original assertions of “leading scientists” ought to lead to criminal charges somewhere.

We should all give our thanks to the International Broadcasting Trust for putting the list online, to Wayback Machine for keeping a copy of it and to the unnamed internet-challenged person who tried to remove the document and forgot to delete the one broken link pointing to it.

George Entwistle??? Crumbs! So the DG was in FULL knowledge of the recent court case, and wanted his attendance to be kept secret, and when made DG, didn’t believe it of worth to declare his position as being in direct conflict with the BBC’s legal Charter!